Starbucks Corporation et al. v. Pi-Design AG et al.

Apple Inc.vsImberaTek, LLC

Apple and ImberaTek settled their inter partes review disputes covering eight patents. The Board terminated all IPRs and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.

Google LLCvs138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.

Google LLC successfully petitioned to challenge key claims of the '638 patent based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The PTAB granted institution, allowing Google to proceed with a substantive review against the patent owner's camera system technology.

PacifiCorp et al.vsMES, Inc.

PacifiCorp challenges the Director’s referral of its IPR on a mercury‑control patent, arguing the PTAB is the appropriate forum and requesting denial of the Director Review. The response highlights prosecution misstatements, lack of settled expectations, and inefficiencies in the MDL.

Google LLCvsVirtaMove, Corp.

Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑18 of VirtaMove’s ’058 patent, arguing the claims are obvious over the Elnozahy and Draves references and lack written‑description support. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.

POSCO Future M Co., Ltd.vsCAMX Power LLC

POSCO Future M Co., Ltd.'s IPR challenge against CAMX Power LLC's lithium-ion battery patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of anticipation or obviousness.